Seizure risk in brain tumor patients with conversion to generic levetiracetam

Therapeutic Basis of Generic Substitution of Antiseizure Medications

More than thirty antiseizure medications (ASMs) are available for treating epilepsy. ASMs differ in their potency and efficacy in controlling seizures by acting on diverse targets in the brain, often with variable pharmacokinetics. Moreover, nearly 30% of people with epilepsy have drug-resistant or intractable seizures. Generic substitution of ASMs is a complex issue. It is thought that frequent generic substitution in people with epilepsy may cause problems because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules allow too much variability across products. The standard bioequivalence range (80% to 125%) appears too broad for many ASMs, especially those exhibiting little separation between therapeutic and toxic levels. Hence, sub-therapeutic concentration may lead to therapeutic failure with seizure recurrence, which could be life threatening. A supra-therapeutic level could result in adverse effects or compliance issues. There are reported issues with generic substitutions of phenytoin, topiramate, levetiracetam, carbamazepine, and lamotrigine. There is discussion in the epilepsy community about additional guidelines, including designation of generic ASMs as Narrow Therapeutic Index (NTI) drugs and how patient education plays a role in generic substitution. Overall, based on the published evidence on specific generic ASMs, FDA bioequivalence standards are not the cause of problems with generic ASM substitution. Rather, it is imperative that physicians and pharmacists provide adequate patient education on what to expect when switching to generic ASMs, including changes in medication shape and color. Another suggestion would be to consider that all ASMs be considered for inclusion in NTI class to prevent the clinical outcome issues associated with generic ASM switching. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: There are critical aspects to consider when switching from a brand name antiseizure medication (ASM) when a generic becomes available or switching between generics. Generic ASMs are interchanged with little consideration of differences in therapeutic equivalence and other clinical factors. This article describes key issues on generic substitution of ASMs and highlights critical pharmacotherapeutic issues associated with generic ASMs.

Population Pharmacokinetics and Dosing Recommendations of Levetiracetam in Adult and Elderly Patients With Epilepsy

The objective was to develop and externally validate a population pharmacokinetic model of levetiracetam in adult and elderly patients with epilepsy, and to perform dosing simulations to propose individualized dosing regimens more likely to achieve therapeutic concentrations. This prospective study included 367 plasma samples from 107 patients receiving oral levetiracetam. Samples were analyzed by HPLC-UV. Pharmacokinetic data, as well as patient demographic, clinical characteristics, other drug therapy, and the use of innovator or generic products of levetiracetam, were collected. Population modeling was performed with NONMEM and included internal and external validations of the final model. Simulations were used to propose optimized dosing regimens. The pharmacokinetics of levetiracetam was described by a one-compartment model with first-order absorption and linear elimination. Body surface area had a significant effect on the apparent volume of distribution, as did creatinine clearance (CrCL) over the drug clearance (p < 0.01). The final model performed adequately during external validation testing. The final model showed a better predictive performance. Dosing simulations support 1000 mg 12-hourly dosing of levetiracetam for patients with CrCL ~60-75 mL/min with higher dose needed for higher values (1500 mg 12-hourly for CrCL ~93-111 mL/min). Dosing regimens should be personalized to the patient's CrCL to maximize the likelihood of therapeutic concentrations.

Potential problems and recommendations regarding substitution of generic antiepileptic drugs: a systematic review of literature

Despite the availability of generic antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), still patients and neurologists hesitate to make a switch due to assorted reasons. The objectives of this review were to evaluate the risks associated with the generic substitution of AEDs. In this context, we also summarized the recommendations of various international societies to treat epileptic patients. We used a number of electronic databases to identify the relevant published studies which demonstrated the potential problems and recommendations regarding generic substitution of AEDs. Of 204 articles found initially, 153 were selected for additional review. Subsequently, 68 articles were finally selected. This review concluded that potential problems linked with the generic substitution of AEDs could be bioequivalence issues, failure of drug therapy, emergence of adverse events and increase in the frequency of seizures. The reasons could be the pharmacokinetics properties of AEDs and unique characteristics of some epilepsy patients. Consequently, the generic substitution of AEDs affects the successful treatment and quality of life of the patients. Various guidelines recommend the well-controlled epileptic patients to avoid switching from brand-to-generic products, generic-to-brand products or generic to some other generic products.

Licensing of Generic Medicines: Are There Any Challenges Left? A Pharmaceutical Regulatory Perspective

When an innovative product (innovator) is not covered anymore by intellectual property rights, cheaper equivalent medicinal products (generic products) may be marketed and used in clinical practice. The regulation of generic products is well-established, and is primarily based on standard rules for quality, therapeutic equivalence requirements (the latter in most instances proven through a bioequivalence study), and safety data for the innovator. The extensive experience from bringing generic products to the market over the last decades allows the conclusion that they are well-accepted and provide a useful alternative option for cost-effective pharmacotherapy. While supporting this conclusion, there are a number of issues to be considered during the assessment of a generic product application. Six scenarios are described in total, from an efficacy and a safety perspective, where potential concerns with the current regulatory standards could arise in the approval of generic products. We also propose solutions to these scenarios in order to foster debate on these issues.

Comparative plasma exposure and lung distribution of two human use commercial azithromycin formulations assessed in murine model: a preclinical study

Azithromycin (AZM) therapeutic failure and relapses of patients treated with generic formulations have been observed in clinical practice. The main goal of this research was to compare in a preclinical study the serum exposure and lung tissue concentration of two commercial formulations AZM-based in murine model. The current study involved 264 healthy Balb-C. Mice were divided into two groups (n = 44): animals of Group A (reference formulation -R-) were orally treated with AZM suspension at 10 mg/kg of b.w. Experimental animals of Group B (generic formulation -G-) received identical treatment than Group A with a generic formulation AZM-based. The study was repeated twice as Phase II and III. Serum and lung tissue samples were taken 24 h post treatment. Validated microbiological assay was used to determine the serum pharmacokinetic and lung distribution of AZM. After the pharmacokinetic analysis was observed, a similar serum exposure for both formulations of AZM assayed. In contrast, statistical differences (P < 0.001) were obtained after comparing the concentrations of both formulations in lung tissue, being the values obtained for AUC and Cmax (AZM-R-) +1586 and 122%, respectively, than those obtained for AZM-G- in lung. These differences may indicate large differences on the distribution process of both formulations, which may explain the lack of efficacy/therapeutic failure observed on clinical practice.

Are generic drugs really inferior medicines?

In this issue Gagne et al. report an elegant case-crossover study of seizures in patients on antiepileptic drugs. They found that a dispensation episode approximately triples the risk of having a seizure within 21 days, but the risk is not statistically different whether the dispensation was of the same brand-name or generic drug as previously used or a switch from brand-name to a generic or from a generic to a brand name. The cause of the seizure might be a delay in taking medication or late redispensation, among others, but apparently the nature of the product dispensed is not relevant in this study; this may alleviate some of the concerns about generic drugs and epilepsy.